Mr. MORPHY:

He is opposed to any one being remunerated in this regard. I hope that as the representative of North Perth 1 will never seek to make any capital out of a matter of this kind. I hope that the time will never come when the unfortunate people of whom the hon. member for Halifax spoke so feelingly to-night and with whom there was connected death, suicide, broken hearts, asylums and disaster, will be made by me the subject of political capital. I hope the day will never come when I shall attempt to make political capital out of the misfortunes of any class of people, whether I represent them or not. I think it is descending pretty low in the scale when a tremendous loss of this kind is debated with a heat that is devoid of all sympathy for the unfortunate ones.

Mr. MACLEAN:

Do not think that there are any politics in my views; there may be in your own, but there are not in mine. I am not in a position to be prejudiced.

Mr. MORPHY:

On February 12, 1912, a Royal Commission was issued to Sir William Meredith to make investigation. Very wide powers were given to him under this commission; they have been related by the Minister of Finance, and I need not repeat them. The commissioner made his return, sessional paper 153a. It is concise and easily understood. I desire to specify for the better understanding of my argument certain dates connected with this matter. On November 30, 1906, at a

meeting of the Treasury Board, the issue of the certificate to commence business was authorized, and the certificate was issued on that day. Two months later, on January 2, 1907, the bank began business. Three years and eleven months later, on December 19, 1910, the bank suspended payment. The failure of the bank, which had twenty-six or twenty-eight branches in Ontario, affected thousands of depositors who were conducting savings or current accounts and who were distributed over widely separated sections of the province. These depositors petitioned the Government of Canada for relief, and the main ground of their application was that the Treasury Board of this country, a board established for the careful consideration, amongst other things, of the issue to banks of certificates to do business after being incorporated, was guilty of negligence in connection with the issue of the certificate under which the Farmers' Bank was launched as a public institution. The general manager, Mr. Travers, who has been spoken of in terms which I shall not repeat, was handed a certificate impressed with the seal and approval of the Dominion Government and sent into the public market to get public business, particularly from the farmers, under circumstances which led only to one end, disaster. Nothing else could be hoped for; it was a case of disaster, loss and ruin to those who had dealings with the concern at the head of which was Mr. Travers. It is argued that the Treasury Board was culpable and guilty of negligence in the issue of that certificate, and that through that negligence the people have suffered. It has been truly said by the Minister of Finance, that if there had been no certificate issued there would have been no bank; if no bank, no deposit; if no deposits no loss. From that point of view it is unnecessary to consider with any hair-splitting, narrow arguments from the lawyer's point of view or otherwise, what the proximate cause of the loss was or what was the efficient cause

of the loss. If I may be permitted to use another word, I should like to say that we should consider what was the deficient cause of the loss, the defective action on the part of the Treasury Board that caused the loss. That is coming closer to the point. There was no efficiency about it. The whole situation and the action of the Treasury Board is reeking with deficiency, with defective operation, with no operation; with neglect, with failure to act. That is the most startling thing about the whole situation from the Treasury Board's point of view.

What is the good of talking about the law in a case of this kind? Parliament can make the law. What is the good of talking about politics? The people will make the politics. They will attend to those who do wrong and those who do right; and I advise the hon. gentlemen to get in and come with us if they feel that way and make this thing unanimous in favour of those who have suffered. No one here desires to take any glory out of this. Let us see if there is not something in the case that can be treated from an equitable and conscientious point of view, mot from a legal hair-splitting point of view, as to whether there has been efficient or proximate cause and what the causes were. The point is that the depositors make their application and they make it upon a basis that is sufficient to arouse in the minds of any reasonable man in this House feelings which would compel him to approach the subject from a point of view of equity and good conscience nather than of the fine hair-splitting points of law. This country, as was said by the leader of the Opposition, ought to be big enough and fair enough to do what is right in this or any other ease. That is the ground on which I would like to see it put, and on which it should be put. The Parliament of this country have been decent in lots of cases where they had less right or reason to go out of their way to do the decent thing than in this case. If an equitable claim exists to such an extent that it ought to move this Parliament, then Parliament can make the laws to suit its case. That is the intention of the resolution before this House. The Minister of Finance introduced the resolution into this House in the most courteous, careful, studied manner so as not to create offence. He laid himself open to arguments which were seized upon by the press

of this country who proclaimed far and wide that the minister had made the admission that the Finance Minister ox the Treasury Board in the preceding Government had not been guilty of negligence but only of an error of judgment and that therefore the whole thing fell down on the admission, of the Minister of Finance. That was making politics with a vengeance.

Mr. McKENZIE:

Is that not what it

was?

Mr. MORPHY:

I do not intend to reply to that from any hon. gentleman who has ever sat upon the Bench. That question is unworthy of the hon. gentleman who asked it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I suppose the hon.

member would not mind my interrupting him.

Mr. MORPHY:

Not at all, so long as the hon. member rises in his place and asks permission he is always at liberty to interrupt me.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The remark that it is unworthy of the hon. gentleman is unparliamentary.

Mr. McKENZIE:

If the Minister of Finance did say that if a mistake was made in the Department of Finance at all it was an error of judgment he was quite right because section 15, with which my hon. friend is quite familiar, says:

No security shall be given by the Treasury Board until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the board.

No certificate shall he given by the Treasury Board until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Board, by affidavit or otherwise, that all the requirements of this Act and of the special Act of incorporation of the bank, as to the payment required to he made to the minister, the election of directors, deposit for security for note issue, or other preliminaries, have been complied with, and that the sum so paid is then held by the minister.

If the minister was satisfied that was all . he had to do.

Mr. MORPHY:

I have a note with regard to error of judgment and will come to it later on. I desire at present to compliment the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance upon the manner in which they have introduced this subject. They have brought it before the House in a way with which the most captious member on the opposite side of the House could find no fault, there (being in it no (bitterness, no intention to wound, to sting, to make poli-

tical profit, but simply to do their plain duty as the members of the Government. So I hope that anything I may say by way of criticism a little later will be taken in the same spirit. Hon. gentlemen opposite need not go around with a chip on their shoulders ready to get angry if we use Mr. Fielding's name. Mr. Fielding would not feel annoyed at strong, trenchant criticism and I do not see why hon. gentlemen should be ready to fly out. The late Minister of Finance was human. We on this side admit his many great qualities; that only shows that he was human, and to err is human. With regard to the error of judgment, what I complain of is that the Finance Minister of the late Government and the Treasury-Board erred in not pursuing the question, so that they would get facts on which to base their judgment, as I will show by quoting the evidence of those who testified. On page 3 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry we find the evidence of Mr. David Henderson, the hon. member who sits in front of me, then a member, who described exactly what took place. About eight days before the issue of the certificate he had a conversation with Mr. Fielding, part of which is given in his evidence [DOT] Mr. Hodgins who had charge of the investigation asked:

David Henderson, sworn, examined by:-

Q. You are a member of Parliament?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were a member of Parliament in 1906?-A. Yes.

Q. Representing the county of Halton?- A. Yes, sir.

Q. You became somewhat interested, I understand, in some matters connected with the organization of the Farmers Bank; I mean, interested to the extent of hearing and knowing about them?-A. Yes, I was present; do you mean the granting of the charter?

Q. About that time?-A. Yes, I was familiar with it from its inception.

Q. You never were financially interested one way or the other?-A. No, in no way; not personnally.

Q. Your interest was in what sense?-A. Simply that I represented a county in which a very large amount of money had been subscribed in stock, and in that way I felt interested for the people I represented.

Q. This being called the Farmers Bank?-A. Well, it was so called, though practically it was not organized farmers.

Q. Were you a member of the Banking Committee of the House of Commons?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember the fact that an application for extension was made on two occasions, in 1905 and 1906?-A. There were two occasions at any rate, if not three; two occasions; perhaps the first one would allow a year to apply for a certificate, and there would be two applications after that.

Q. The last application that I know of is contained in the Statute, 1906, which gave six months?-A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that coming up in the Banking Committee?-A. Yes, it was limited to six mouths.

Q. Do you remember why?-A. Why it was limited?

Q. Yes?-A. We had in the Banking Committee hesitated a good deal about extending the time; the Finance Minister objected very much, and I confess I concurred with him, usually supported him in that; and on the second occasion when they came back, we simply gave them six months, thinking as they had had two years it was not well to keep the matter dangling before the people longer, and the time was limited because we thought they should have been more active.

Q. Was anything known as to who was interested in the bank at that time?-A. Well, I knew nothing about it, I think, beyond the names of the provisional directors as published.

Q. Did any one appear beiore the committee in order to urge this extension?-A. Now, I am not sure, I do not recall.

Q. Do you know who suggested limiting the time to six months?-A. I could not speak at this date; it may have been Mr. Fielding, or perhaps myself. I had adopted a policy of that kind-we had

the Committee had-adopted a policy of that kincl J think, with some previous charter.

Q. Was any inquiry made into the particular circumstances of the difficulty these people had in organizing?-A. I am not aware that there was any particular inquiry, the simple fact they had not succeeded in getting all the money; they asked for more time.

Q' They had six months, from the 18th July, 1906 ; probably about six months from the date it came up?-A. It was six months from the expiry of the previous year.

Q. After that, did you take any steps in connection with the organization of the Farmers Bank or with reference to It?-A. No, I think I could say none whatever.

Q. That is, you had nothing to do with the matter from that time.-A. No.

Q. Did you make any communication at all at any time to the Finance Department with reference to it or to any one connected with the Finance Department?-A. I had a conversation with the Hon. Mr. Fielding with reference to their mode of raising money.

Q. Had you known about that yourself'___A

I incidentally learned it a few days before I went to him that they were discounting the notes which had been taken from shareholders.

Q. They were discounting the notes; did you know anything more than that?-A. I was shown several notes made by shareholders, farmers in my county, and I saw on the back of these notes the endorsement of the provisional directors.

Q. That would be several names, would it?_

A. Yes, there were several names.

Q. How did you see those?-A. A few days before the House met; the House met that year, I think, on the 22nd of November-a day or two days before I had occasion to go to Milton, from where I lived in the village of Acton, and on my way I met the solicitor of a number of farmers who had contested their liability to pay their stock, feeling that something was wrong.

Q. Who was the solicitor you met?-A. Mr. Laidlaw.

Q. Where were you going from when you met him?-A. I was going from home, from the

village of Acton, by way of Georgetown to Milton.

Q. By rail?-A. Yes.

Q. Did you meet him?-A. Just met him casually in the car.

Q. Had he the notes?-A. Yes, he showed them to me.

Q. That would fix the time at which you acquired your first knowledge?

Mr. Commissioner: He has not mentioned the year yet.

Mr. Hodgins: Can you fix the date at all to that?-A. I can fix it by reference to other matters, I said the House met that year on the 22nd November.

Q. What year was it?-A. 1906 ; the House met that year on the 22nd November, and it would be a short time before that, perhaps not more than a few days.

Q. What communication did you make then, and to whom, in consequence of what you saw and heard from Mr. Laldlaw?-A. I casually met Mr. Fielding and informed him that I had seen notes of shareholders in the possession of Mr. Laidlaw, endorsed by provisional directors, and presumably it was for the purpose of raising money to make the deposits, as the time had nearly expired. Our conversation lasted only for a few minutes and was along that line.

Q. Can you give us in any more detail what was said by you and by him, or is that what you have told us the general tenor of it? A. By Mr. Fielding?

Q. Yes? A. I mentioned the circumstance which I have detailed to you, and Mr. Fielding, I think, seemed somewhat surprised; at any rate, he answered me by saying that he would hold back the certificate as long as he could.

Q. You had no further conversation with Mr. Fielding at that time? A. No. I have given you just the conversation we had; I don't think it lasted more than two or three minutes at the outside.

Q. How soon after your coming down to Ottawa was that? A. I would asspme, I have no absolute data, but I would assume it would be within three or four days at the furthest, within a few days; I may mention this as fixed in my memory, I knew it was before the granting of the certificate, because Mr. Fielding told me he would hold it back as long as he could, and it was after the House met; the House met on the 22nd, the certificate was granted about the 30th, so it was between the 22nd and the 30th; I would suppose I went to Mr. Fielding possibly within a day or two at the outside after I came down.

Q. What occurred then, and what further was said? A. He stated that Mr. Travers had been down and he had brought his money; that he had asked him, that he had put it up to him- he did not say definitely what he had put up to him; he left me to assume on account of our conversation within a few days before that it was what I had told him-and that Mr. Travers had denied it, and he asked him to give him a letter to that effect and he said he did so; and he says, 'I then gave him the certificate.'

Q. You have known Mr. Fielding for a long time? A. I have known him for over 15 years.

Q. Were you and he friendly? A. Very friendly.

Q. In 1910? A. Yes. On that occasion I went to Mr. Fielding's room in the House of

Commons, to his office, to see him personally. I had information that there was something of a very peculiar character which seemed to me would materially affect the bank's interests, and its standing, and I felt, as I said before, very naturally worried and anxious about it and I called on Mr. Fielding and told him what I had learned. He was familiar with the facts himself, as much so as I was, and after chatting a few moments about it he turned to me and said, ' Well Henderson I don't know why you should worry over this; you are not responsible for it and besides you did warn the Government.'

That is very strong language. I desire to go a little farther along the

1 a.m. same line so as to be fair to those who then constituted the Treasury Board:

Mr. Commissioner: Why did not you put in

writing your warning? A. Well, we do not always put everything in writing that we say to a minister. Sometimes it is safer not to put it in writing; that is my experience. It did not occur to me at the moment to put it in writing, besides I think I simply met him casually; sometimes these things are given out to the public, but into other hands sometimes to the detriment of the member of Parliament. They saw it was undue interference on my part. However, my own impression is I met Mr. Fielding casually, this matter was in my mind, and I just simply mentioned the matter to him, told him what I knew about it. Of course being Finance Minister I did not require to put it in the shape of a warning, because he knew the effect of a thing of that kind. It did not occur to me at the moment the necessity of putting it in writing; I thought that he was the man that if he had the knowledge that that would possibly be as far as it would necessary for me to go, he having control practically of the issue of this certificate, and being the chief member of the Treasury Board.

It will be seen that the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board had full notice of the events leading up to the issue of the certificate which would have caused prudent men to have acted differently from the way in which these gentlemen acted. On page 51 we find the evidence of Sir Edmund Osier:

Mr. Hodgins: You were a member of the

House of Commons in 1906? A. Yes.

Q. You remember the time at which the certificate was granted to the Farmers Bank? A. Yes.

Q. Had you an interview on the subject ot the Farmers Bank at all with Mr. Fielding, the Finance Minister? A. Yes.

Q. Was that before or after the certificate was granted? A Before the certificate was granted.

Q. Was It at Ottawa? A. Yes.

Q. We are told that the House set about 22nd of November in that year? A. I do not recollect.

Q. We will have to prove that in some other way; was it after the session began in 1906? A. Yes.

Q. What was your interwiew with him, what occurred during that interview? A. I told Mr. Fielding that I had knowledge that the money that was deposited there was practically ob-

tained by false pretenses, that it was not bona fide money obtained by stock subscriptions.

Q. What money did you refer to? A. The money that was deposited with the Government pending the issue of the certificate.

Q. Did you go any more into detail? A. No, I told him that I knew, as a matter of personal knowledge that it was not a straight

Q. You were speaking of the way in which the money was raised by the discount of notes? A. Yes, to my knowledge.

Q. Of what notes? A. From discounting the notes of the subscribers.

Q. Did you intimate that to Mr. Fielding? A. Yes.

Q. Or was it in a general way that you made the statement? A. Oh, it was in a general way, but in a sense particular, because I made that statement.

My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax Will have to remember that, while the hon. member for West Toronto said it in a general way, he also says that he said it in a sense particular, because he made the statement that the money was obtained by false pretenses, and that it was not just a passing and casual conversation. It will not do for my hon. friend to waive it to one side and say that he casually met Mr. Fielding and made this remark to him. What was said is a matter of evidence. You cannot actually say that a man is guilty of false pretenses. It is too serious a charge to make in a casual way about a man. Fraud, crookedness, false pretenses cannot be charged casually. I do not think any sane man would believe the hon. gentleman's statement about these matters only having been casually mentioned.

Mr. MACLEAN:

By whom?

Mr. MORPHY:

Both by Mr. Osier and Mr. Henderson.

Mr. MACLEAN:

I say that they say that their remarks were made casually.

Mr. MORPHY:

I have read how this remark was made, and Sir Edmund Osier denies that it was made in a casual way. He says that it was 'in a sense particular, because I made that statement,' the statement being that the method of obtaining money by stock subscription was not straight, and that it was being obtained by false pretenses. Mr. Fielding admits both of these conversations, but he does not remember what took place at them. He admits the conversations with the hon. member for Halton and the hon. member for West Toronto, but his mind is vague, hazy, and in no way too clear as to what took place. He admits that the conversations were about the bank. Whom are you to believe, leaving aside any bias, any 297

self-interest-the men who say that they do know what was said, or the man who says that he does not remember? The question of weighing evidence will appeal to the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), being a judge of distinction and long experience, and I would like him to answer that after reading the evidence. Turning to the exhibits that have been filed with the evidence, I might mention that there are several letters which have been put in by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White). I am not going to encumber my remarks with these letters; they are already in, and can be found in the exhibits. But there is one letter from Mr. Leighton McCarthy that .1 desire to read and to comment briefly upon. It is as follows:

Home Life Building, Victoria, Street,

Toronto, October 8, 1906. Honourable W. S. Fielding,

Minister of Finance,

Ottawa.

My Dear Mr. Fielding,-I have been consulted on behalf of a number of subscribers to the shares of the Farmers Bank, and from the instructions I have received a number of the subscribers will dispute the bona fide character of the subscriptions. I have no time to-night to give a full statement of the grouhds of this request to you, but I beg to assure you that grave conditions have arisen which will require careful consideration before the Treasury Board would grant any certificate for the organization of this bank.

I therefore ask you to be good enough to stay any action which might be taken until I have had an opportunity of discussing this with you. If it is not asking you to hold it too long, I would prefer not having to go to Ottawa this week, but will go any day next week which would suit your convenience. Of course if there is no immediate prospect of your granting such a certificate my seeing you at an early date will not be necessary.

Leighton McCarthy.

Subsequently this wire was sent on the 11th October:

Toronto, Ont., Oct. 11, 1906. Hon. W. S. Fielding,

Minister of Finance,

Ottawa.

Please wire me assurance in reference to stay of certificate of Treasury Board mentioned in my letter of Monday night.

Leighton McCarthy.

Mr. Fielding wired back:

Ottawa, October 11, 1906. Leighton McCarthy, M.P.,

Toronto.

No application yet received for the certificate referred to. Please forward your representations immediately and they will be considered when application comes.

W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance.

Hon. gentlemen will notice that is a promise on the part of the man whose duty it was to do so to consider the charges that Mr. McCarthy had made in his letter. On October XI, Mr. Fielding sent the following telegram to Mr. Leighton McCarthy :

Ottawa, Oct., 11, 1906. Leighton McCarthy, M.P.

Toronto, Ont.

No application yet received for the certificate referred to. Please forward your represent -tations immediately and they will be considered when application comes.

W. S. Fielding.

Ottawa, Oct., 11, 1906.

And on the same date, October 11, Mr. Fielding wrote to Mr. McCarthy:

My Dear Mr. McCarthy-

I have your letter of the 8th inst. and your telegram to-day on the subject of the Farmers Bank.

I wired you today that no application had been made by the promoters for the Treasury Board certificate, and suggested that you send at once any representations that you may wish to make, to which we shall give all due consideration.

W. S. Fielding,

Minister of Finance.

On the 12th of October, Mr. McCarthy wrote to Mr. Fielding as follows:

Toronto, Oct., 12, 1906. My Dear Mr. Fielding-

Many thanks for your telegram received last night advising me that no application had yet been received for certificate of the Farmers Bank and asking me to forward representations immediately when they will be considered. This will receive my attention.

I am obliged to you for the telegram.

Leighton McCarthy.

Then on October 19, 1906, there is a long letter from Mr. McCarthy to Mr. Fielding, which is as follows:

Toronto, Oct. 19, 1906.

Re the Farmers Bank of Canada.

My Dear Mr. Fielding-

I beg to enclose the special endorsement upon a writ of summons in the High Court of Justice for Ontario, which will he issued by: William A. Saxon, John Sproat, George Castle, Wm. McLean, Finlay McCallum, Robert Hume, Jas. Murray, Geo. Denoon, John McLeod, Jane Shuert, Wm. Harris, on behalf of themselves and all other persons alleged to be subscribers for shares of the capital stock of the Farmers Bank of Canada who may desire to come in and be parties to this action, against the Farmers Bank of Canada, Jas Gallagher, John Watson, John Ferguson, Alexander Fraser, Alexander Shepherd, Lown, W. R. Travers, C. H. Smith, A. G. H. Luxton and the Traders Bank of Canada, and W. J. Lindsay, and I respectfully request that the Treasury Board will stay any action upon the application of persons professing to act in the name of the Farmers Bank of Canada or in the name of the provisional direc-

tors of the Farmers Bank of Canada, for a certificate under section 15 of the Bank Act on the grounds alleged in the enclosed special endorsement and other grounds which may he disclosed upon the examination of the alleged subscribers for shares.

X have received information that the alleged subscribers for shares paid a large sum of money in cash and have signed notes for other large sums of money, and that the persons professing to act in the name of the bank have transferred notes and received the proceeds and that a deposit either has been made or will he made of the cash received and the proceeds of those notes or sufficient amount to make up $250,000.

I wish you to have the kindness to acknowledge the receipt of this protest against the granting of a certificate, so that I may advise the shareholders who are disputing their liability and I would he pleased to go to Ottawa upon any appointment you may make for the further consideration of this matter.

Leighton McCarthy.

The letter enclosed a writ against a number of individuals as well as against' the Traders Bank, issued by a gentleman in one of the most reputable law firms in the Dominion of Canada, a former member of this House, a gentleman well known to members opposite and with whom he had political affiliations, a man who would not make a statement lightly without just reason to believe it could be proven to the hilt. This gentleman sent forward the

writ as a warning to the Minister of Finance, and that writ contained an endorsement which is to be found at page 1006 of the Exhibits, and which is as follows :

This action is brought by the plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of all other alleged shareholders of the Farmers Bank of Canada, who dispute the validity of alleged contracts to take shares of the capital stock of the Bank, and who allege that they were induced to subscribe for shares through fraud and misrepresentation, and who may request to be joined as plaintiffs.

And the plaintiffs' claim is, (1) For a declaration that the alleged contracts are void; (2) For the rescission of alleged contracts to take shares of the capital stock of the Farmers Bank of Canada; (3) For an accounting for the money and promissory notes received or alleged to have been received in the name and on behalf of the provisional directors of the bank; (4) for an injunction; (5) for a

receiver: and (6) for administration.

And the following are particulars of the Plaintiffs' Claim:

1. The Farmers Bank of Canada was incorporated by a Special Act of Parliament of Canada on the 18th day of July, 1904.

2. The defendants Jas. Gallagher, John Watson, John Ferguson, Alexander Fraser and Alexander Shepherd Lown, were appointed by the said Act to he provisional directors of the bank.

3. Amendments of the Act of Incorporation

were passed on the 20th day of July, 1905, and on the 26th day of June, 1906.

4. The amendment passed on the 20th day of July, 1905, is alleged to have been passed on the petition of the Farmers Bank of Canada; and the amendment passed on the 26th day of June, 1906, is alleged to have been passed on the petition of three of the provisional directors of the bank.

6. Stock books were opened in pursuance of the prospectus for the purpose of entering subscriptions of persons who might be induced to subscribe for shares of the capital stock of the bank.

7. The applications for subscriptions for shares and proxies appointing the secretary of the provisional board, and forms for receiving subscriptions for shares were printed and put in circulation.

8. Forms of bank notes in the name of the Farmers Bank of Canada were also either printed, lithographed or engraved for the purpose of inducing persons to subscribe for shares.

9. The printed prospectus, the application for stock, the forms for subscriptions, and the said forms of bank notes in the name of the Farmers Bank of Canada, were delivered to agents and solicitors to procure subscriptions for shares.

10. The agents and solicitors produced and used the prospectus, the applications and the forms, in their canvass for subscriptions for shares.

11. The plaintiffs and others subscribed for shares, and the plaintiffs allege:-

(1) That the provisional directors who professed to act- for and in the name of the bank, had no lawful power or authority to receive subscriptions for shares or to accept them; and

(2) That the subscriptions for shares which were procured from the plaintiffs and others were procured through fraud and misrepresentation, and the plaintiffs allege amongst others, the following particulars of fraud, namely :-

(1) That the agents in procuring the subscriptions for shares falsely represented that persons had subscribed for a larger number of shares than they had in fact subscribed for, and the following are examples of such false representations, namely-

(a) That Robert Noble whose name i.s. entered in the prospectus as one of those who had consented to be a director, had subscribed for shares to the amount of $10,000, whereas he had in fact only subscribed for shares to the amount of $3,000;

(b) That John Sproat had subscribed for shares to the amount of $10,000, whereas he had in fact only intended to subscribe for shares to the amount of $1,000, and that he was induced to sign an application in the belief that it was tilled up for $1,000, and that the general manager afterwards claimed that it was a subscription for $10,000, and the said John Sproat then repudiated the entire subscription ;

(d) That James Murray had subscribed for shares to the amount of $10,000, whereas he had in fact only subscribed for shares to the amount of $1,000:

(e) That Dr. Stewart was subscribing for shares to the amount of $10,000, whereas he was not in fact subscribing for any shares; and other false representations of a similar character were made by the solicitors and agents in reference to alleged subscriptions of other persons.

297i

Mr. Fielding and the Treasury Board had that document in their hands when Travers came down to get this certificate; they had read it and all these charges were before them, and yet there is not a line in Mr. Fielding's evidence, from one end of it to the other, in which he swears that he ever asked whether these charges were true or not. There is a statement in Mr. Fielding's evidence to the effect that he asked Travers to give him a letter that these things that were said about him were not true, but there is no evidence that Mr. Fielding ever held this document up before Travers and said: Travers, you have

to wipe these charges out before you can get a certificate from me.

On the motion of Mr. Morphy, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Of course this can only be done with the consent of the House.